Slashdot Mirror
Stallman On the UK Digital Economy Bill
superapecommando submitted a blog entry written by Stallman about the UK's bandwidth initiatives. RMS says "When I read about Gordon Brown's plan to give the UK more broadband, I couldn't restrain my laughter. Isn't this the same clown now busy circumventing democracy to take away broadband from Britons who already have it? And what good would broadband do them if they're punished for using it (or even being suspected of using it)? Laying cables would be a waste of resources if people are not allowed to use them.
Brown did suggest another possible use for broadband. He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want."
...it's so Peter Mandelson can hand a nice, fat-profit-inducing mess over to Murdoch and the big media companies. Crack down on things they see as threatening their revenue stream, and give people a big fat pipe from which to slurp premium content. In return, maybe there'll be some favourable coverage in the media of Labour in the run up to the election on May 6th.
If you're in the UK, 38 degrees have made it easy to write to your MP about this bill.
Over 20,000 people have already done so.
My 1992 proposal for a special tax to be distributed to artists, with the money partly shifted from the most popular ones towards those not quite so successful, is still applicable.
Yup, I have just read that and its a pile of crap - the whole idea seems to be to reward those who are successful less and less, and reward those who are failing more. Why are those who are popular less deserving of those who are not? This isn't some politically correct playschool, where everyone holds hands to cross the line together at sports day rather than crown a sole winner - no, this is real life.
Now, I am against this Bill (and have written, faxed and phoned by MP - she will be calling for more discussion and consultation), but Stallman and his stance isn't the answer.
For anything that politicians will actually pay attention to, I should think that a 56Kb dialup would be sufficient.
"He said that it would enable MPs to better communicate with their constituents and keep track of what they want."
I want them all to fuck off and die.
Painfully, if possible.
Ciao, Obnoxio
When I was brought up in Wales in the 1980s, I felt that Cymdeithas yr Iaith (the Welsh Language Society) were making unreasonable demands in their campaigning. And I still do to an extent.
But, in the 1960s and earlier, the right for Welsh people to speak and learn in their mother tongue was a serious civil rights issue. By the 1980s things had improved greatly, largely thanks to the activities of Cymdeithas yr Iaith.
I think that by continuing to maintain pressure, perhaps for demands that are a step too far, they prevent the pendulum from swinging back to where it was in the 60s.
I think the same goes for Stallman. Many people benefit from Free Software. Many people would be satisfied for a less pure Free Software world than Stallman demands. But without Stallman's purist stance, the average would shift to a less free position. I wouldn't want that.
That's a pretty incorrect understanding of RMS's economic model. He never advocated a pure donation economy and has clarified multiple times that there is nothing wrong with making a profitable business around open source software. If you want to try relying on the viability of his model, go work for Red Hat for a few years.
I actually stopped reading when RMS started calling people clowns and saying that they aren't going to allow people to use their broadband. Name calling? Really? Then following it by saying they won't let people use the broadband while forgetting that they just mean people suspected of violating copyright and get accused several times? Stuff this well balanced belongs on Faux News. Sorry RMS, I didn't finish reading the article because you write like a clown. (couldn't resist...)
Fixed that for ya.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
You are wrong.
Unlike you, Stallman recognises the difference between sharing for personal use and taking for commercial expoitation. He is also aware of how free licenses depend on copyright law and that a complete abandonment of such law would screw free software. In fact, he spoke at length to the Pirate Party UK about it, a conversation that had a fair influence on our final manifesto, which now includes special provisions for FOSS.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Bottom line is - there is a more-or-less one-to-one correlation between
the sets of people who:
1. outright violate copyright on a grand scale.
2. are poor earners, social misfits...
What a post. I'm reminded of O'Reilly, in conversation with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart: "You got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night. 87% are intoxicated when they watch..."
Tell me, do you find that outright manufacture of statistics is generally an effective mechanism in successfully debating complex issues? If you do, do you find that this mechanism is:
a) a good thing, because you get to win arguments based on totally uncited shit you pulled out of your ass, or
b) seriously concerning, because entire areas of governmental policy are set via arguments based on totally uncited shit that lobbyists pull out of their asses?
Your post is an example of extremely lazy ad hominem argumentation, and possibly also extremely lazy thinking as well. Here are some statistics for you. Given that this is a story about filesharing activities in the UK, here's a stat from the UK:
It is not impossible that 23% of individuals in the UK all share the same characteristics (poor earning, social misfits, highly vocal complainers) - although if that is the case it is surprising to me that only 20684 emails (rather than the expected 7-8 million) have been sent to MPs regarding the Digital Economy Bill. But can you really characterise 23% of the population as 'a minute fraction'?